#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
First gay couple on disney channel
Disney channel's show "Good Luck Charlie" features their first lesbian couple, your thoughts?
http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/disney-channel-introduces-first-gay-characters-in-family-sitcom-good-luck-charlie/story-e6frfmyi-1226811812800
It's about time
Side Score: 174
|
 |
The kids are too young
Side Score: 93
|
|
This is a step in the right direction. People that disagree can just continue to shelter their children from reality I suppose....not that TV has much reality on it. Disney usually just uses some stereo type when representing the "other" so I am a bit apprehensive. Guess I will just withhold my judgement until after I see it or not (my kids taste in Disney are usually the movies and a few sitcoms like "Kickin It"). Side: It's about time
2
points
I only watched a little clip, but from what I saw the heterosexual parents weren't shocked, and didn't pass judgement even though they weren't aware that the child's parents were homosexual. The lesbian parents seemed normal, dressed normal, and acted normal. The part I watched didn't show any stereotypes. Side: It's about time
At this point it should be completely normal. I really dont get why there is such a big deal about the types of couples that exist. If its not your relationship, then why do you choose to care and have an opinion on it to the point that you think that it shouldnt be allowed. In a perfect world, there should be no difference between whether the couple is straight or Gay. I support this 100% and really think that the community is being held back by people who Dont want relationships like this to exist or to be seen in a public forum. It just isnt up to you, Its up to the people who form the relationship to begin with. Side: It's about time
3
points
I didn't really say anything good about this, I just gave my biased opinion, so I'll adjust that in this clarification. It's good (so far) how it was done. The couple didn't come in too stereotypicaly, too sexually, just as an normal gay couple would introducing their family. I also like how the family was open to it as most families are in this day and age, but they were still surprised and didn't know how to react normally just like the average heterosexual family might. Side: It's about time
2
points
2
points
2
points
3
points
1
point
1
point
5% of 3 million is 150,000, which if you compare to 3 million is just a small number. Awesome this is completely useless information, you're an idiot. I'm not saying that the 5% doesn't matter Yeah you were, don't lie. again I was just putting it out there that there are less gay people than most people would think (including me) And 1 gay couple on this show, so a small number. Side: It's about time
4
points
1
point
Yep, it pointed out the guy was correct in his statement that there are a lot of homosexuals, but it added nothing to the debate. I have only ever seen people bring up that fact to point out how insignificant the homosexual population is. Notice I didn't get mad at him until he started doing random math, though. Side: It's about time
That isn't remotely relevant to the debate in any way. He literally said a stupid statement. 1% of 300 million is a large number. His response to me was that it isn't a large number if you look at the rest of the world. Guess what, it is still a big number. Then, he took 5% of 3 million. What am I supposed to do with 5% of 3 million? That has even less to do with the debate than the 1% number he posted. Side: The kids are too young
1
point
The 2000 U.S. Census Bureau found that homosexual couples constitute less than 1% of American households. The Family Research Report says "around 2-3% of men, and 2% of women, are homosexual or bisexual." So you didn't even read what I said? 2-3% of men 2% of women, I used the 3% in case you can't add 2+3= 5 I could use the 1% but that would be an even smaller number. Read before you reply, I'm glad I could teach you this lesson. Side: It's about time
That's not how percentages work. 2% of half the population is 1% of the total population. Men and woman represent half of the population each. Therefore a 2-3% figure and a 2% figure would be ~2.25% of the total population. Next, where did you get the 3,000,000 number. That was my calculation. That was the number of gay people in America since the overall population is 300 million. And, that was just using the low 1% number. So, it is closer to 6 million. Look, no insults from me. Side: The kids are too young
2
points
1
point
|
3
points
This is shocking. Next thing you know they're going to have divorced parents who get remarried, children getting a time out instead of getting beaten with a rod, women marrying the person they love instead of being sold to the highest bidder, women telling men what to do, etc. Shame on Disney channel. What is this world coming too. We should go picket their headquarters with signs saying things like, "Women, shut your pie hole and listen to your man" and "show your kids you love them by beating their ass". Who's with me? ;) Side: The kids are too young
1
point
1
point
1
point
I never said it was objectively wrong. You and I have already had the whole objective morality conversation at least 3 times and we both agree that morality is subjective. However, my subjective opinion and the opinion of the most civilized societies in the world is that those things are wrong, and I bet your subjective opinion is that those things are wrong as well since I don't think you would appreciate it if your dad sold you to some guy as a slave. Regardless, that's not the point I was trying to make with my post. The point of it is to show how Christians selectively target gays and ignore all the other parts of their Bible. Also, since we're on the topic of objective morality, my original argument also shows that Christians who claim morality is objective don't actually believe it, because most of them believe those things I mentioned are wrong despite the fact that their supposed source of objective morality says the contrary. Side: It's about time
1
point
The point of it is to show how Christians selectively target gays and ignore all the other parts of their Bible. I dont agree since there are Christians that support gays. There are gay churches. Saying that just shows me the bias you hold. I don't think you would appreciate it if your dad sold you to some guy as a slave. Law is law. Side: It's about time
1
point
I didn't say all Christians. I think my statement makes it pretty clear that I'm referring to the ones who target gays. Law is law There was no law saying you have to sell your daughter as a slave, and just because something is a law doesn't make it right. There have been may ridiculous laws throughout the years. Side: It's about time
1
point
I didn't say all Christians. I think my statement makes it pretty clear that I'm referring to the ones who target gays. Then be more specific. You just said Christians. You didn't say "most" or "some". You just said Christians. There was no law saying you have to sell your daughter as a slave, and just because something is a law doesn't make it right. There have been may ridiculous laws throughout the years. I thought we agreed that morality is subjective? Also there was an obvious law in place otherwise it wouldn't be there. Whether it be transcendent or worldly. Saying a law is ridiculous is answering from your subjective interpretation. Side: It's about time
1
point
You didn't say "most" or "some". You just said Christians. Fair enough, I probably should have said "some Christians" but since it's common knowledge that not all Christians are anti-gay clarification seemed unnecessary. I thought we agreed that morality is subjective? We did, which should tell you that when I'm speaking about right and wrong I'm referring to my subjective opinion on it. Also there was an obvious law in place otherwise it wouldn't be there. The law was about the treatment of sold daughters. It wasn't telling you that you have to sell your daughter. Saying a law is ridiculous is answering from your subjective interpretation. Correct, but just because it's subjective doesn't make it completely irrelevant. Laws change because when we evaluate the reasoning behind them we sometimes see that there was no good justification for them. For example, in Hood River Oregon it's illegal to Juggle without a license. Side: It's about time
1
point
1
point
1
point
It says that selling your daughter as a lifetime slave is okay. The culture at the time believed that this was moral. So in the biblical sense it was a moral and normal thing to do. It sounded to me like that was what you were implying Nah. Its perfectly relevant. Side: It's about time
1
point
It's not that I want to shelter the kids, I just think they're too young to fully understand the concept of homosexuality, or even sexuality in general. When they get a bit older, perhaps, but eh. Depends on the child too I guess; I keep forgetting that gay couples adopt, so this wouldn't exactly be shocking for those kids. Eh. I guess it really depends: How young is 'too young'? Side: The kids are too young
1
point
It's not that I want to shelter the kids, I just think they're too young to fully understand the concept of homosexuality, or even sexuality in general. So should we stop having heterosexuals on T.V. since it would be to mature for them? If kids can understand a man and woman being in love, and being in a romantic relationship, I don't see how making it a woman and a woman, or a man and a man, makes that anymore difficult. Perhaps, since homosexuality goes against the status quo, and is seen as "abnormal" to society, then they may be a little socialized to be wierded out by it, but that would only mean that they need to be desensitied to it, as it wouldn't be naturally that way. I don't see why we should treat homosexuality on the telly, and different than heterosexuality. It's not like they are going to have sex on T.V. probably be displayed with as much decency as heterosexual couples are. Side: It's about time
7
points
Kids are exposed to couples all the time on television, why is it so bad that one of them is gay? I think it's good for kids to see this actually, they can see that homosexual couples are just like everyone else and not grow up to be homophobic snobs. Stop patting yourself on the back because you find a certain gender to be attractive and the other not to be, it's just sexuality, people should be defined by their achievements and actions, not sexuality. You don't even have a religious claim against gays because Christians (the few that read the bible anyway) interpret the bible subjectively and ignore most of it's rules. Side: It's about time
Did you see the clip? They aren't kissing or mounting each other, they're just established as being together. I don't need to see the clip. It isn't worth my time to be honest. And you aren't worth my time as well. How are kids not ready for that? Gay people do exist, kids are going to see them. Kids shouldn't be learning about gay people. They should be learning about a proper couple is which is male and female. Side: The kids are too young
1
point
Oh, and you can hide your children away from the truth only for so long. Today it's Disney that's realizing that gay people do exist, tomorrow it's cartoon network, then before long gay people will be as common an occurrence on television as they are in the very world we live it. You feel that pressure? That's the walls of your myopic views and biased opinions closing in on you. Better expand your horizons before they crush you. Side: It's about time
Oh, and you can hide your children away from the truth only for so long. Today it's Disney that's realizing that gay people do exist, tomorrow it's cartoon network, then before long gay people will be as common an occurrence on television as they are in the very world we live it. I know that gay people exist and I will tell my kids the truth about what why there are a lot of theses things happening. Teach them like how my parents taught me and bring them up to be Christians if God wants them to. You feel that pressure? That's the walls of your myopic views and biased opinions closing in on you. Better expand your horizons before they crush you. What pressure? I don't feel any pressure. Those aren't my views. It's someone else's views that they established. I am just agreeing and supporting those views because I am not the one who came up with theses views. I am not changing my view at all. What's sin in God's eyes will always be sin no matter what you or anybody else says if it's not. Side: The kids are too young
So if you know they exist, why should they not be on a television show? It seems like it'd be a quicker way for you to infect your children's minds with lies. Since as soon as they see the gay couple you can tell them how that couple will burn in hell. I'm sure that thought is so much worse to a child's mind than the prospect of of gays being natural. Side: It's about time
It's wrong because when they put gay couples on TV that means that they are supporting the view that gay marriage is okay when in reality it isn't. I am not going to infect my children with lies at all. (I don't have any children, only a teenager)I am going to tell them the truth about why it's wrong and what is proper which started from the very beginning when God made male and female which is proper. Side: The kids are too young
First, I'd like to address this point. "only a teenager" I surely hope that these views you have are just due to that, and that when you mature a bit you'll see things more clearly. Now to address your arguing points. You said: "It's wrong because when they put gay couples on TV that means that they are supporting the view that gay marriage is okay when in reality it isn't." This is a purely theological standpoint, and basis for deciding what's fair for children. I assume you also believe they should not show any one of a religion other than Christianity on television. I sincerely hope I don't have to explain to you how this is hypocritical. Side: It's about time
1
point
This is where Christianity gets dangerous. You can't say why being gay is wrong in terms of harm caused etc but rather all you can say is that a book tells you its wrong. Are Christians so morally bankrupt that they cant justify their morality more than to say 'God told me so'? You're happy discriminating and causing harm to a whole subset of society based on what you perceive to be God's word? Side: It's about time
1
point
Thank you Atrag. I completely agree. In the times of Galileo, the church spread another lie: that the earth was the center of everything. When Galileo uncovered proof otherwise, he was persecuted. He was put on lifetime house arrest for life I think. A perfect example of the no true Scotsman fallacy in action. Side: It's about time
1
point
Yes, it is a sin and people do choose to be gay. Let's look at Romans 1:26-27 "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error." In this verse it says that women and men abandoned natural sexual relations with one another and exchanged them with lust for one another and unnatural relations. Notice the word exchange in the verse? That means they changed from being a heterosexual into a homosexual. Paul is basically saying right there that it's a choice to become gay. Side: The kids are too young
3
points
1
point
Do you believe in Satan? If so, then you understand that he is the great tempter. No, you do not choose who you're "attracted" to. However, that's because Satan knows he has a hold on you in that area. And when he has a hold on you, well, he's gonna try as hard as he can. We all are tempted, and it's our choice whether or not to give in. Now, I'm not saying I'm holier than you. No, I'm tempted a bunch and as much as I hate it, I've sinned before. Side: The kids are too young
You're coming off as hostile, but I guess that's to be expected. Considering your kind specialize in creating a following by force or by naivety. So I already expected you to spout more drivel, or just ignore me all together like you've continually done since I've seen your first argument. Side: It's about time
You're coming off as hostile, but I guess that's to be expected. Considering your kind specialize in creating a following by force or by naivety You can say I am, but I am only following what someone said 2,000 years ago. Just standing up for what is right in God's eyes. We don't force people to believe. It's God who does the converting not us. We just tell the message and if the person's heart is ready to receive Christ then they receive Christ. If someone doesn't want to believe in God then we leave them be until God works in them to convert. So I already expected you to spout more drivel, or just ignore me all together like you've continually done since I've seen your first argument. It's not my fault that you and others always dispute me. When you know what I will respond. So why even try when my view isn't going to change at all? Side: The kids are too young
Let me stop you here, you said: "I am only following what someone said 2,000 years ago." This is where your argument is already flawed. What has happened 2000 years ago, is of little or no relevance to what is happening now. Now in the real world that you can see with your own eyes, if you stop being lazy, gay people exist. They live next door to you, they deliver your male, they go to your kids' schools, they go to your school, work in your office, walk their dogs just like you. To deny that is literally wrong. not in the moral sense, but in the physical sense. So if, no, since gay people are every where what would you seek to accomplish by opposing them in a kid's show, or believing a 2000 year old book over what you can see? My second point that you addressed, wasn't a statement of woe that i can't change your opinion, it was a statement of acceptance, since as i said, i already know you'll hold on to your old as time principles rather than think for yourself. However, the reason that i will always dispute if you place your opinion is because in placing it, you are accepting the fact that it will be met with criticism, especially if it's as biased as the Christian opinion often is. I'd also like to say, you're setting a really great Christian example, simply ignoring anyone who shows you how you're wrong, or attempting to silence them with downvoting. So yea, keep up doing God's work ;D Side: It's about time
This is where your argument is already flawed. What has happened 2000 years ago, is of little or no relevance to what is happening now. Now in the real world that you can see with your own eyes, if you stop being lazy, gay people exist. They live next door to you, they deliver your male, they go to your kids' schools, they go to your school, work in your office, walk their dogs just like you. To deny that is literally wrong. not in the moral sense, but in the physical sense. So if, no, since gay people are every where what would you seek to accomplish by opposing them in a kid's show, or believing a 2000 year old book over what you can see? It still is relevant to today, because there was homosexual people back then living in Jesus's time and even after. Why do you think Paul wrote to the Corinthians about who will not inherit the Kingdom of God? One of the reasons was being a homosexual. Also the same thing in Romans 1. Also you forget that in the time of Noah it was like how it is right now in this world where people were being really wicked and sinful. I'd also like to say, you're setting a really great Christian example, simply ignoring anyone who shows you how you're wrong, or attempting to silence them with downvoting. So yea, keep up doing God's work ;D I am not wrong. I am standing up for what God said what's right and that is homosexuality is a sin. Ignoring your points has nothing to do with being a Christian or not. And I hate it when non-believers like you say this when it has nothing to do with anything written in the Bible about that. It gets very annoying and tiring making crap up to believe that I should believe you when in all reality, God see's your wrong. Side: The kids are too young
In response to your first argument I'd ask why God doesn't just pick a righteous person to round up all the animals, and do what he did in the time of Noah, but as most Christians have proven, they have an answer for everything, as illogical as some may be. Instead I'll just skip straight to the point and say, this is an opinion of your religious belief, not a fact that we can observe in this world today. In regards to your second paragraph you missed my sarcasm, so I'll stop doing that. You are perfectly fitting the stereotype of bigoted Christian when you refuse to hear other's points under the premise "God knows all". Side: It's about time
1
point
1
point
I don't need to see the clip. It isn't worth my time to be honest. And you aren't worth my time as well. Then how can you speak of it? If I want to protest something, I have to see and understand it first. Also, it it's not worth your time, why are you talking about it? Side: It's about time
I am talking about it because I want to. Alright then, that's your right. Just don't expect to be taken seriously if you haven't seen what you're talking about :P How many times did you say you were going to leave and you ended up coming back? Twice. And you guys fell for it twice XD Side: It's about time
2
points
2
points
1
point
2
points
2
points
1
point
1
point
If my son turns out to be gay then I will tell him that it's still wrong and that he should repent. What if he can't? Many people are gay in very religious households, and they really try to stop being gay. But they can't. They can abstain from homosexual behavior, but they can't stop being gay. Side: The kids are too young
2
points
They can abstain from homosexual behavior, but they can't stop being gay. This is bullshit which is generated by dickheads from mass media and has nothing to do worth science. Give me a link to any scientific article which claims to have proved that gayness is "inborn" and "immutable", and I'll show you the paragraphs in it which say "these results may mean", "this can be interpreted as", e.t.c. Nothing has been proved, although they've been boasting about this for more than a decade. The truth is, most of the statistical "research" has either been proved false, or the results were not repeated by other scientists who did the same surveys. Side: It's about time
Did you choose to be straight? This is really a ridiculous pseudo-scientific argument. Let's imagine bestiality has been legalized (it's not so impossible) and people who are not attracted to animals are labeled in some way, like "humanosexuals", as opposed to bestialists. Just like "straights" are opposed to "gays". So, next I ask you: "Did you choose to be a humanosexual?" Of course not. And this means that bestialists are "born this way". End of proof. Now, using this demagogy, it's possible to prove that every paraphilia, and almost every addiction, is "inborn". In mathematics, when a method of proof allows us to prove a statement which is known to be incorrect, than this in its turn proves that the method is incorrect. Could you force yourself to have sex with another man? I couldn't force myself to have sex with a dog. Does this mean that bestiality is inborn? If you had sex with another man, do you think you would still be attracted to women? I don't know and I have no wish to find out. Side: The kids are too young
Now, using this demagogy, it's possible to prove that every paraphilia, and almost every addiction, is "inborn". It probably is. In mathematics, when a method of proof allows us to prove a statement which is known to be incorrect, than this in its turn proves that the method is incorrect. The statement being proven isn't known to be incorrect. You have absolutely no reason to have sex with a guy, why would any other guy want to do it? Side: It's about time
It probably is. Yes, and the full version of this is: Using your demagogic "did you choose to be" argument, it's probably possible to prove that that every paraphilia, and almost every addiction, is inborn. So, your argument is null and void. The statement being proved isn't known to be incorrect. I just proved the statement that "bestiality is inborn", which is known to be incorrect, using your line of reasoning. Which proves that your line of reasoning is fallacious. You have absolutely no reason to have sex with a guy, why would any other guy want to do it? Human psychology sometimes plays evil tricks, and a guy might try this. The reasons are very complicated, but mainly have to do with the subconscious desire to stop playing the gender role, especially in a society where a man has to constantly "prove that he is a man". This is a childish way of skipping such social games. But it's a road to nowhere since the person starts destroying his health. Side: The kids are too young
Yes, and the full version of this is: Using your demagogic "did you choose to be" argument, it's probably possible to prove that that every paraphilia, and almost every addiction, is inborn. So, your argument is null and void. I say your argument is null and void, so boom it is. This is such a better way to handle arguments. I just proved the statement that "bestiality is inborn", which is known to be incorrect, using your line of reasoning. Which proves that your line of reasoning is fallacious. I have not seen any proof that bestiality is not inborn. Human psychology sometimes plays evil tricks, and a guy might try this. The reasons are very complicated, but mainly have to do with the subconscious desire to stop playing the gender role, especially in a society where a man has to constantly "prove that he is a man". This is a childish way of skipping such social games. But it's a road to nowhere since the person starts destroying his health. Ah, you think it is tough being straight and every guy should be forced to deal with the same torment you go through. I got you now. Side: It's about time
I say your argument is null and void, so boom it is. This is such a better way to handle arguments. Pretending to be dumb does not give you credit. Anyone who reads my previous posts, will see that I proved your argument to be fallacious, not skipping any details. Shall we make a debate on whether this is true? I have no wish to repeat everything I've said, posting in this debate, so you can pretend not to see 90% of it, again. I have not seen any proof that bestiality is not inborn. So these people cannot help being the way they are? Why is there no bestial marriage recognition then? The argument about consent is ridiculous when talking about animals, since many animals are sexually obsessed and try to harass humans - it's the humans who may or may not consent in these situations. And you completely missed the most important point: using the "did you choose to be" argument, it's possible to prove that every addiction is inborn - which is obviously not true. Ah, you think it is tough being straight and every guy should be forced to deal with the same torment you go through. I got you now. If I can build a model of gay psychology, that doesn't mean that I have these problems or am under "torment". I am just looking for alternative explanations to why people become gay, rather that adopt the primitive "born this way" theory. What's tormenting me is that USA is degrading, and has stopped being a moral authority for my country, whereas without the latest freaky PC agendas, it would be an almost perfect example to follow. That's why I try my best to resist your LGBT nonsense. Side: The kids are too young
Pretending to be dumb does not give you credit. Anyone who reads my previous posts, will see that I proved your argument to be fallacious, not skipping any details. Shall we make a debate on whether this is true? I have no wish to repeat everything I've said, posting in this debate, so you can pretend not to see 90% of it, again. Which fallacy? So these people cannot help being the way they are? Why is there no bestial marriage recognition then? The argument about consent is ridiculous when talking about animals, since many animals are sexually obsessed and try to harass humans - it's the humans who may or may not consent in these situations. And you completely missed the most important point: using the "did you choose to be" argument, it's possible to prove that every addiction is inborn - which is obviously not true. That is not obviously not true. Why are people considered to have addictive personalities? If I can build a model of gay psychology, that doesn't mean that I have these problems or am under "torment". I am just looking for alternative explanations to why people become gay, rather that adopt the primitive "born this way" theory. And your advice for the people who are having a mental breakdown and are unwilling to stick with the traditional role they have to lead is to tell them to shut the hell up. You are so nice. What's tormenting me is that USA is degrading, and has stopped being a moral authority for my country, whereas without the latest freaky PC agendas, it would be an almost perfect example to follow. That's why I try my best to resist your LGBT nonsense. Now you are quoting me, but it isn't the stuff I said. Maybe we should go back to the times when the moral authority of America said blacks and whites shouldn't marry. Side: It's about time
Which fallacy? OK, you're right - the truth is, you actually did not provide any argument, you just asked a question "Did you choose to be straight". What usually follows is "So, being gay is inborn". I was answering this implied argument, I mean the two sentences put together, when you actually wrote only the first one. So, maybe we should go back all the way, and you should state your argument? I didn't choose to be straight - so what? That is not obviously not true. Why are people considered to have addictive personalities? I don't know. Where did you get that from? What I was saying, is that using the "Did you choose to be" argument, one can "prove" that anything is inborn. If you are implying that "gayness" is a personality, well that's a myth and has nothing to it...I mean that here "personality" is used only as a clever word, but no actual content is provided, the mainstream LGBT ideology does not provide a psychological model. And that's beyond the point...even if it's a "personality", my line of reasoning is still true...addictions are not personalities but DYCTB (did you choose to be) argument "proves" they are inborn. And your advice for the people who are having a mental breakdown and are unwilling to stick with the traditional role they have to lead is to tell them to shut the hell up. No, my advice to them is to be strong, fight their own demons, and fight the society which is pushing them in that direction. Be anarchists if needed, but do not give up. Now you are quoting me, but it isn't the stuff I said. Maybe we should go back to the times when the moral authority of America said blacks and whites shouldn't marry. That was my mistake. Those were of course my words, I wrote them in bold for emphasis, which I shouldn't have done. No, we should not go back to the times when America was oppressing blacks, or when Cromwell was butchering the peasants. Driving my statement to the absurd, does not prove anything. In fact, before the revolution, Russia had held a higher moral ground than America, in some aspects of life. However I beleive that America after Roosevelt and until the 90-s can and should be an example for post-soviet Russia. Side: The kids are too young
OK, you're right - the truth is, you actually did not provide any argument, you just asked a question "Did you choose to be straight". What usually follows is "So, being gay is inborn". I was answering this implied argument, I mean the two sentences put together, when you actually wrote only the first one. So, maybe we should go back all the way, and you should state your argument? I didn't choose to be straight - so what? You were wrong about the fallacy, why can't you be wrong about gays? I don't know. Where did you get that from? What I was saying, is that using the "Did you choose to be" argument, one can "prove" that anything is inborn. Which is not inherently a problem. If you are implying that "gayness" is a personality, well that's a myth and has nothing to it...I mean that here "personality" is used only as a clever word, but no actual content is provided, the mainstream LGBT ideology does not provide a psychological model. It is fun to just call stuff myths for no reasons, yay! And that's beyond the point...even if it's a "personality", my line of reasoning is still true...addictions are not personalities but DYCTB (did you choose to be) argument "proves" they are inborn. And, your point is what? Maybe they are inborn. No, my advice to them is to be strong, fight their own demons, and fight the society which is pushing them in that direction. Be anarchists if needed, but do not give up. But, their instincts tell them to have gay sex, they aren't being told to have gay sex. Your advice is to not talk about it at all and be like everybody else. In fact, before the revolution, Russia had held a higher moral ground than America, in some aspects of life. Yeah, because you killed all of the people you deemed immoral. So, your main argument is that gay marriage should be banned in order to stay ahead of Russia. That's worse than DYCTB idea. Side: It's about time
You were wrong about the fallacy, why can't you be wrong about gays? How are these two connected? I was wrong about the fallacy, simply because you had provided no argument, only asked a question - check your initial post. If there was no argument, there was no fallacy. So, what was your argument? I was answering the implied argument as I understood it, but to continue debating I have to know whether or not I understood correctly. Which is not inherently a problem. This is inherently a problem, because some addictions and psychological conditions have been proved to be caused by the environment and upbringing, and not be inborn. However, these conditions being caused by environment and upbringing, does not mean there was a point in time when the individual "chose to be that way". There, I've spelled it out for you - will you still pretend not to understand me? It is fun to just call stuff myths for no reasons, yay! The reason is in my sentence which you yourself had quoted: there is no psychological model, just the word "personality. Don't tell me your knowledge of English is worse than mine. And, your point is what? Maybe they are inborn. Not every addiction or trait is inborn, that's a well known fact. But, their instincts tell them to have gay sex, they aren't being told to have gay sex. Your advice is to not talk about it at all and be like everybody else. By mentioning instincts, you imply biology, when I speak about psychology. Psychology is the default area, in which to seek answers to behavioral conditions, unless we are talking about hormones which cause normal sexual attraction. Behaviors of gays is not caused by hormones and that's a fact. Therefore, the normal way is to first seek a psychological model of their behavioral patterns. Also, you seem to be unable to comprehend what I write. I wrote: my advice is to resist society, and become anarchists if needed. How is that "being like everybody else". The picture is: SOCIETY PRESSURE -> PSYCHOLOGICAL PROBLEMS -> GAYNESS I say society pressure, which comes in the form of gender stereotyping, is to be resisted. Yeah, because you killed all of the people you deemed immoral. Cartman, can you read? I said before the revolution, not during the communists. Or do you have a problem with history? There was NO slavery in Imperial Russia, ever - that was the higher moral ground. In Imperial Russia, there were less than 1600 executions of criminals, during the years 1825 - 1907, i.e. in 84 years. That's a well-documented fact. Now, check out how many executions there were in USA, during any 10 year period. Don't try to play the game in which I am a Russian communist, and you're from the "free world". I am anti-communist, and was like this before the fall of the USSR. Side: The kids are too young
How are these two connected? I was wrong about the fallacy, simply because you had provided no argument, only asked a question - check your initial post. If there was no argument, there was no fallacy. So, what was your argument? I was answering the implied argument as I understood it, but to continue debating I have to know whether or not I understood correctly. Maybe I don't actually feel like debating you. I have demonstrated you have a track record of being wrong and rushing to judgement. This is inherently a problem, because some addictions and psychological conditions have been proved to be caused by the environment and upbringing, and not be inborn. However, these conditions being caused by environment and upbringing, does not mean there was a point in time when the individual "chose to be that way". There, I've spelled it out for you - will you still pretend not to understand me? I am sorry I didn't bring this up before, but your statement that being able to prove that homosexuality is inborn doesn't get extended to all addictions. You have to actually try drugs before you have an addiction to them. Your generalization doesn't fit. You actually commit the slippery slope fallacy. People don't wake up and all of a sudden want to smoke crack, but people inherently do wake up and want to smoke a dude's pole. Not every addiction or trait is inborn, that's a well known fact. A lot of traits are inborn, you don't know either way, so you can't claim that one trait is not inborn because a bunch of others aren't. Also, you seem to be unable to comprehend what I write. I wrote: my advice is to resist society, and become anarchists if needed. How is that "being like everybody else". Society says to be with someone of the opposite sex. You want gay people to have gay sex? The picture is: SOCIETY PRESSURE -> PSYCHOLOGICAL PROBLEMS -> GAYNESS I say society pressure, which comes in the form of gender stereotyping, is to be countered. So act feminine and be with other guys? What is it that you want them to do, be gay? Cartman, can you read? I said before the revolution, not during the communists. Maybe I just want to make fun of Russians. Side: It's about time
Maybe I don't actually feel like debating you. I have demonstrated you have a track record of being wrong and rushing to judgment. You have demonstrated nothing. There was no fallacy in your non-argument. But there is a fallacy in the implied argument, which I proved to be ridiculous: that argument "proves" that any addiction is inborn. I am sorry I didn't bring this up before, but your statement that being able to prove that homosexuality is inborn doesn't get extended to all addictions. You have to actually try drugs before you have an addiction to them. Your generalization doesn't fit. No, you're actually committing a "change of terms" fallacy. The implied patterns which I am debating, is the same: 1. Inborn aptitude to drugs-addiction -> trying drugs -> becoming drug addict 2. Inborn aptitude to gayness -> gay sex -> gay sex addiction So, if the DYCTB argument proves that aptitude to gayness is inborn, it also proves that aptitude to drugs is inborn. I am now only debating the DYCTB argument, not anything else. This: but people inherently do wake up and want to smoke a dude's pole is wrong too, it has been proved that gayness is caused by social conditioning at least sometimes. A lot of traits are inborn, you don't know either way, so you can't claim that one trait is not inborn because a bunch of others aren't. Yes, so I can't claim it...so what? I didn't claim it. I said something else, that because at least some traits are not inborn, the DYCTB argument is fallacious. Society says to be with someone of the opposite sex. You want gay people to have gay sex? Gender stereotyping is about many other things apart from sex. The weight of this stereotyping can be abusive for the psyche. What I am implying that psychological manipulations based on the gender stereotypes, should be identified and resisted. Whenever someone says "A real man must..." and you don't agree, those who say it should be told to go fuck themselves. Becoming gay is not resistance, it's surrender. So act feminine and be with other guys? What is it that you want them to do, be gay? Act masculine, but do not yield to psychological manipulations, regardless from men or women. Maybe I just want to make fun of Russians. Well you've just made fun of yourself, by writing that stupid shit. It was really hilarious. Side: The kids are too young
You have demonstrated nothing. There was no fallacy in your non-argument. But there is a fallacy in the implied argument, which I proved to be ridiculous: that argument "proves" that any addiction is inborn. Like I said, slippery slope. Not all addictions work like being gay. No, you're actually committing a "change of terms" fallacy. The implied patterns which I am debating, is the same: 1. Inborn aptitude to drugs-addiction -> trying drugs -> becoming drug addict 2. Inborn aptitude to gayness -> gay sex -> gay sex addiction So, if the DYCTB argument proves an aptitude to gayness, it also proves an aptitude to drugs. I am now only debating the DYCTB argument, not anything else. If you try drugs you become addicted to drugs. Without trying gay sex you still want gay sex. They are completely different and one cannot draw the same conclusion. Drugs alter brain chemistry directly. You don't get your brain chemistry changed until after you choose to do drugs, so it doesn't fit DYCTB because you did choose to be a drug addict. This: but people inherently do wake up and want to smoke a dude's pole is wrong too, it has been proved that gayness is caused by social conditioning at least sometimes. At least sometimes means that other times not, so my statement is 100% accurate. I was not saying that all gay people do. Act masculine, but do not yield to psychological manipulations, regardless from men or women. Now you want them to pretend to be masculine just because a real man must be masculine. I thought they were supposed to tell you to go fuck yourself and act feminine. Well you've just made fun of yourself, by writing that stupid shit. It was really hilarious. I try to lighten the mood with mass murder. Side: It's about time
Like I said, slippery slope. Not all addictions work like being gay. That's not a slippery slope. I was proving DYCTB to be wrong. You can't counter me, without introducing another premise: that gayness has some other qualities, which sets it apart from addictions, and because of which my counter-arguments do not work. What are these special qualities? You cannot mention the supposed inborness of gayness, since you "proved" it with DYCTB, and using it here will create a logical circle. You cannot base your arguments on something which you yet have to prove. If you try drugs you become addicted to drugs. Without trying gay sex you still want gay sex. You may want to try drugs without having tried them. You may want to try gay sex without having tried it. In fact, some research indicates that alcoholism is sometimes partially genetic. People with this trait may be more eager to start drinking, and become addicted faster. You don't get your brain chemistry changed until after you choose to do drugs, so it doesn't fit DYCTB because you did choose to be a drug addict. So, slowly we are getting to your second premise: "Gayness is caused by different brain chemistry". Do you know how many studies have proved this? Answer: 0 Try as you will, you won't find any scientific articles with such claims. At least sometimes means that other times not, so my statement is 100% accurate. I was not saying that all gay people do. Your statements are sometimes 100% ambiguous. What did you mean by "inherently" in but people inherently do wake up and want to smoke a dude's pole Now you want them to pretend to be masculine just because a real man must be masculine. I thought they were supposed to tell you to go fuck yourself and act feminine. I meant act masculine not in the social sense, which has many stupid concepts of masculinity. Be masculine in a direct sense, i.e. kick ass when you're threatened. But don't allow women to get you into a fight with many opponents, out of their stupidity. Don't listen to the stupid things your mother says. Society has many stupid and contradicting concepts of what a man has to be, and therefore can go fuck itself and its concepts. For example, in Russia you hear all the time that "A real man has to serve in the army". This "army" is a sadistic sect, and most of it has nothing to do with military training (unlike the US army, which is all about military training). So the army can go fuck itself. I try to lighten the mood with mass murder. Which didn't exist in Russia before the revolution. Side: The kids are too young
That's not a slippery slope. I was proving DYCTB to be wrong. You can't counter me, without introducing another premise: that gayness has some other qualities, which sets it apart from addictions, and because of which my counter-arguments do not work. What are these special qualities? You cannot mention the supposed inborness of gayness, since you "proved" it with DYCTB, and using it here will create a logical circle. You cannot base your arguments on something which you yet have to prove. I don't know which fallacy it is. Presenting a fallacy to prove the premise is wrong means that you didn't prove anything. You are claiming I am inserting another premise, but you started it. I was talking about sexual orientation, but you brought up addiction. You created a contradiction by fallaciously linking addiction and sexual orientation. You actually have to have used drugs before being addicted to them, there is a huge difference. You may want to try drugs without having tried them. You may want to try gay sex without having tried it. In fact, some research indicates that alcoholism is sometimes partially genetic. People with this trait may be more eager to start drinking, and become addicted faster. If you haven't used drugs, you aren't a drug user, if you want to try gay sex, you are gay. See the difference. The alcoholism gene doesn't help you because that would be inborn. So, slowly we are getting to your second premise: "Gayness is caused by different brain chemistry". Do you know how many studies have proved this? Answer: 0 Try as you will, you won't find any scientific articles with such claims. Perfect, this supports me. Addiction is definitely brain chemistry, the drugs change your brain. Gayness is not a brain chemistry change, see they are different. Your statements are sometimes 100% ambiguous. What did you mean by "inherently" in but people inherently do wake up and want to smoke a dude's pole Is it even possible to have a statement that is 100% ambiguous? Hehe. I was saying some people want to have gay sex without having tried it. I meant act masculine not in the social sense, which has many stupid concepts of masculinity. Be masculine in a direct sense, i.e. kick ass when you're threatened. But don't allow women to get you into a fight with many opponents, out of their stupidity. Don't listen to the stupid things your mother says. Society has many stupid and contradicting concepts of what a man has to be, and therefore can go fuck itself and its concepts. For example, in Russia you hear all the time that "A real man has to serve in the army". This "army" is a sadistic sect, and most of it has nothing to do with military training (unlike the US army, which is all about military training). So the army can go fuck itself. You have introduced a weird gray area that is very arbitrary. In what way is gay sex giving up? Which social norms can be broken without giving up? Which didn't exist in Russia before the revolution. Ok, noted. Side: It's about time
You created a contradiction by fallaciously linking addiction and sexual orientation. It is not fallacious, both have to do with a habit / habits which are difficult to overcome and resist. There is no definite boundary between these two. It is in fact possible to start living an asexual life, and live normally. It is not vital for survival. But you will not survive if you quit drinking water. In any case, the point of my argument is: there are many habits and aptitudes which are not inborn, but at the same time are not chosen. They are acquired, but there is no conscious choice involved. So, the line of reasoning in which we say "Did you choose to...." -> "No" ->"Then this is inborn", is fallacious. if you want to try gay sex, you are gay. I think this is a very stupid and dangerous dogma. Quite a few teenagers might want to try gay sex, simply because they would go for any kind of sex - due to their raging hormones. So, when grownups teach them they are "gay" just because they have these uncontrolled urges - I think these grownups are committing a crime. You have introduced a weird gray area that is very arbitrary. In what way is gay sex giving up? Which social norms can be broken without giving up? You had suggested it's "tough being straight" for me. While that's not true for me, it's quite possibly true for others. The path of least resistance can lead someone to becoming gay. But it's actually "tough being straight" for these guys, because society imposes too many contradicting demands on "real men". Instead of making childish decisions, these guys should make it tough for society to impose anything on them, i.e. take the fight back. Being masculine is one thing, but abiding by all of society's norms is another. Side: The kids are too young
It is not fallacious, both have to do with a habit / habits which are difficult to overcome and resist. There is no definite boundary between these two. It is in fact possible to start living an asexual life, and live normally. It is not vital for survival. But you will not survive if you quit drinking water. In any case, the point of my argument is: there are many habits and aptitudes which are not inborn, but at the same time are not chosen. They are acquired, but there is no conscious choice involved. So, the line of reasoning in which we say "Did you choose to...." -> "No" ->"Then this is inborn", is fallacious. But, you choose your addictions, you don't choose your sexual preference. You have to have chosen which drug causes your addiction. You can be attracted to the same sex without trying it. I think this is a very stupid and dangerous dogma. Quite a few teenagers might want to try gay sex, simply because they would go for any kind of sex - due to their raging hormones. So, when grownups teach them they are "gay" just because they have these uncontrolled urges - I think these grownups are committing a crime. What? Your Russian law says it would be illegal to not tell them they are gay. How is telling someone it is normal to be attracted the same sex all of a sudden not gay propaganda. You don't make any sense. You had suggested it's "tough being straight" for me. While that's not true for me, it's quite possibly true for others. The path of least resistance can lead someone to becoming gay. But it's actually "tough being straight" for these guys, because society imposes too many contradicting demands on "real men". Instead of making childish decisions, these guys should make it tough for society to impose anything on them, i.e. take the fight back. Being masculine is one thing, but abiding by all of society's norms is another. You didn't understand my question or answer it, congratulations. Side: It's about time
But, you choose your addictions, you don't choose your sexual preference You address some minor flaws in my presentation of my arguments, but not the main thesis. Here it is, again: There are many habits and aptitudes which are not inborn, but at the same time are not chosen. So, the line of reasoning in which we say "Did you choose to...." -> "No" ->"Then this is inborn", is fallacious. (1). You have to have chosen which drug causes your addiction. Speaking about addictions was not a error on my side, but proving this will take a lot of writing and eventually get us off topic. In short, it true you have to have chosen the drug, but it's possible that you have a genetically caused aptitude to drugs, which makes it hard for you not to try one. Your Russian law says it would be illegal to not tell them they are gay Where did you get that from? In reality, the opposite is true: http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ You didn't understand my question or answer it, congratulations. Yes, thank you. Your congratulations mean you understood nothing from my answer. Side: The kids are too young
You address some minor flaws in my presentation of my arguments, but not the main thesis. Here it is, again: There are many habits and aptitudes which are not inborn, but at the same time are not chosen. So, the line of reasoning in which we say "Did you choose to...." -> "No" ->"Then this is inborn", is fallacious. (1). The "minor" flaws in your argument are what you are using to prove your main thesis. Speaking about addictions was not a error on my side, but proving this will take a lot of writing and eventually get us off topic. In short, it true you have to have chosen the drug, but it's possible that you have a genetically caused aptitude to drugs, which makes it hard for you not to try one. You said it was impossible for a genetic component to drug addiction. Make up your mind. Where did you get that from? In reality, the opposite is true: http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ Why isWesternmediaconstantlylyingaboutthenewRussianlaws I don't know anything about your stupid laws other than what I have heard from you. Here is where you are wrong: "Propaganda of non - traditional sexual relationships among minors, expressed in the dissimation of information aimed at forming non - traditional sexual attitudes among minors, attractiveness of non - traditional sexual relationships, distorted image of social equality of traditional and non-traditional sexual relationships, or the imposition of information about non - traditional sexual relations, which can attract interest to such relations, if these actions do not make up a criminal offence, - shall entail the imposition of an administrative fine in the amount of 4000 to 5000 rubles for citizens; in the amount of 40 000 to 50 000 rubles for oficials; and in the amount of 800 000 to 1000 000 rubles for organizations, which can in the latter case be replaced by suspension of activity for up to 90 days." Telling someone it is normal for them to have gay tendencies is going against that part of the law. You are promoting gay propaganda. Yes, thank you. Your congratulations mean you understood nothing from my answer. No, it means you dodged my question because you realized your position is incredibly stupid and contradicts yourself. But, you can lie to yourself if that makes you feel better. Side: It's about time
The "minor" flaws in your argument are what you are using to prove your main thesis. No even slightly true. Here, I'll break down my argumentation if it's hard for you to do it yourself: 1. "There are many habits and aptitudes which are not inborn, but at the same time are not chosen" - this is a well-known fact. Social conditioning which happens from birth, creates a huge amount of acquired prefferences, tastes e.t.c. These things are not inborn, but neither are they consciously "chosen". If you deny this you are blind to the facts. 2. So, the line of reasoning in which we say "Did you choose to...." -> "No" ->"Then this is inborn", is fallacious. The only flaw is that I didn't spell this out for you at the start, and gave you a chance to follow the "drug addiction" line which I only used to illustrate things. Nothing in my main argument depends on that line. You said it was impossible for a genetic component to drug addiction There is at least some kind of evidence in favor of this, while every survey which had "proved" genetic origins of gayness has been either shown to be irrelevant or its results were not repeated by independent researches. I don't know anything about your stupid laws other than what I have heard from you.Telling someone it is normal for them to have gay tendencies is going against that part of the law. You are promoting gay propaganda. First of all, I haven't told you anything about any laws apart form giving that link to the debate. Second, if you are not joking about and really mean what you say, you are truly retarded. You cite the law which forbids attracting interest to homosexual relations. How is that "promoting gay propaganda"?. For the alternatively gifted, again: a kid can have homosexual urges due to hyper-sexuality, and the law does not allow anyone to propagate a concept which says : "These urges mean you are gay". Everything else is your fantasy. Speaking about STUPID laws, here's a good example: the recently adopted Californian bill which allows boys to go into girls' restrooms, if these boys think they are really of the opposite gender. There are many other stupid "politically correct" laws adopted by your moon-bats, I'm glad most people don't support them. No, it means you dodged my question because you realized your position is incredibly stupid and contradicts yourself. You are like a dumb bimbo from high school who thinks maths is "stupid" because she can't understand it. I did not dodge the question, you just didn't understand my answer. Society first pushes people who have psychological problems to subconsciously choose gayness, and then stereotypes it as "inborn" - this is disgusting. Side: The kids are too young
No even slightly true. Here, I'll break down my argumentation if it's hard for you to do it yourself: 1. "There are many habits and aptitudes which are not inborn, but at the same time are not chosen" - this is a well-known fact. Social conditioning which happens from birth, creates a huge amount of acquired prefferences, tastes e.t.c. These things are not inborn, but neither are they consciously "chosen". If you deny this you are blind to the facts. 2. So, the line of reasoning in which we say "Did you choose to...." -> "No" ->"Then this is inborn", is fallacious. The only flaw is that I didn't spell this out for you at the start, and gave you a chance to follow the "drug addiction" line which I only used to illustrate things. Nothing in my main argument depends on that line. You have changed your entire line of argumentation. There is at least some kind of evidence in favor of this, while every survey which had "proved" genetic origins of gayness has been either shown to be irrelevant or its results were not repeated by independent researches. And, you disproved a genetic link to gayness by saying that addiction has no genetic link. You also claim that addiction has a genetic link. Second, if you are not joking about and really mean what you say, you are truly retarded. You cite the law which forbids attracting interest to homosexual relations. How is that "promoting gay propaganda"?. For the alternatively gifted, again: a kid can have homosexual urges due to hyper-sexuality, and the law does not allow anyone to propagate a concept which says : "These urges mean you are gay". Everything else is your fantasy. You are promoting the idea that it is normal to have homosexual urges you propagandist. Speaking about STUPID laws, here's a good example: the recently adopted Californian bill which allows boys to go into girls' restrooms, if these boys think they are really of the opposite gender. There are many other stupid "politically correct" laws adopted by your moon-bats, I'm glad most people don't support them. You are comparing freedom to go into a bathroom that you feel you belong in with to a fine for saying it is ok to have gay sex? At least you recognize how stupid your law is. I agree that your law is just as stupid as our law. You are like a dumb bimbo from high school who thinks maths is "stupid" because she can't understand it. I did not dodge the question, you just didn't understand my answer. YOUR ANSWER DIDN'T SCRATCH THE SURFACE OF MY QUESTION. Your answer was playing hockey while my question was playing baseball. Society first pushes people who have psychological problems to subconsciously choose gayness, and then stereotypes it as "inborn" - this is disgusting. That's way better than the alternative of pushing people to choose something and then say they were fully responsible for their decision and should be punished. Not saying you do that, but your version isn't really that disgusting. Side: It's about time
You have changed your entire line of argumentation. Not really, right from the beginning my main thesis was that the dichotomy "you either chose to be A or A is inborn", is false because there are other possible alternatives. I just didn't spell it out like that because to me the implication seemed obvious. And, you disproved a genetic link to gayness by saying that addiction has no genetic link. You also claim that addiction has a genetic link. Your every sentence twists everything I say several times. I said that it's false that every addiction has a genetic link. I did not claim some addiction has a genetic link, I only suggested that, contrary to your claims, gayness does not have these special qualities which set it apart form drug addiction and which do not allow using my logic with regard to it, the way I use it regarding drug addiction. I.e. i was countering your argument that "unlike with being gay, you have to first try a drug to become an addict" with "just like with gayness, we can speculate about an inborn aptitude which might compel someone to try taking some drug". You are promoting the idea that it is normal to have homosexual urges you propagandist. Again, you are twisting my words. I never said it's normal for teenagers to have homosexual urges. I said these urges can take place, but they are caused by hypersexuality and cannot be used to stereotype these teenagers as being "gay". Also, this might sometimes be the only form of sex available to them. These teens may also try to bang a lifeless object or an animal - does that mean they were born with fetishism or bestiality? Certainly not. This law does not forbid any mention of homosexuality. Explaining that homosexuality is harmful and should be avoided is not a perpetration of the law - and that's the kind of thing I would expect from normal sex education. You are comparing freedom to go into a bathroom that you feel you belong in with to a fine for saying it is OK to have gay sex? Well, the first is much worse because it obviously opens tons of opportunities for perverts. The law doesn't contain special age restrictions, so an 18-year-old dude may claim he feels he's "female" and get a ticket for unlimited voyeurism in girls' toilets. At least you recognize how stupid your law is Its wording is not perfect, but the intention is right. At least it will prevent indoctrination of teens with the "born this way" bullshit. YOUR ANSWER DIDN'T SCRATCH THE SURFACE OF MY QUESTION. Your answer was playing hockey while my question was playing baseball. Your questions were: In what way is gay sex giving up? Which social norms can be broken without giving up? The answers were all there in my reply: 1. Becoming gay is giving up because the person is choosing to stop resisting the pressure of society and takes up the path of "least resistance". He makes a sissy out of himself, just to solve psychological problems - but this is not the solution. Maybe I didn't elaborate enough on this: if a man takes every concept of society to be true, he may come to a point when he receives the implied message "you are not a man" - under certain circumstances. While many of these concepts are stupid and are not really about masculinity. 2. So, the social norms to be broken are the ones which project social concepts of masculinity. That doesn't mean not being masculine, it just means being anarchist towards society if it demands too much. By demands here I mean implicit demands. This is more about the situation in Russia. Another important fact: there are still some tribes left in the world, whose society is that of prehistoric times. In those of them which do not link availability of females to performance during hunting - there is no homosexuality. That's way better than the alternative of pushing people to choose something and then say they were fully responsible for their decision and should be punished. Not saying you do that, but your version isn't really that disgusting. I don't do it, and the new Russian law does not provide punishment for being gay. However it's true that stopping the "born this way" indoctrination is just part of the solution. Teaching men to resist social projections is the other important part, and of course this is not mainstream in Russia. Side: The kids are too young
Not really, right from the beginning my main thesis was that the dichotomy "you either chose to be A or A is inborn", is false because there are other possible alternatives. I just didn't spell it out like that because to me the implication seemed obvious. You did spell it out and you were wrong in the way you did it. Now you are just passing it off as fact. Your every sentence twists everything I say several times. I said that it's false that every addiction has a genetic link. I did not claim some addiction has a genetic link, I only suggested that, contrary to your claims, gayness does not have these special qualities which set it apart form drug addiction and which do not allow using my logic with regard to it, the way I use it regarding drug addiction. I.e. i was countering your argument that "unlike with being gay, you have to first try a drug to become an addict" with "just like with gayness, we can speculate about an inborn aptitude which might compel someone to try taking some drug". Great, you don't understand what I say, and now you don't understand what you say. I never said it's normal for teenagers to have homosexual urges. I said these urges can take place These contradict each other. These teens may also try to bang a lifeless object or an animal - does that mean they were born with fetishism or bestiality? Certainly not. Again, brushed off as fact. Well, the first is much worse because it obviously opens tons of opportunities for perverts. The law doesn't contain special age restrictions, so an 18-year-old dude may claim he feels he's "female" and get a ticket for unlimited voyeurism in girls' toilets. What the hell do you think goes on in bathrooms? Its wording is not perfect, but the intention is right. At least it will prevent indoctrination of teens with the "born this way" bullshit. Worthless. The answers were all there in my reply: 1. Becoming gay is giving up because the person is choosing to stop resisting the pressure of society and takes up the path of "least resistance". He makes a sissy out of himself, just to solve psychological problems - but this is not the solution. Maybe I didn't elaborate enough on this: if a man takes every concept of society to be true, he may come to a point when he receives the implied message "you are not a man" - under certain circumstances. While many of these concepts are stupid and are not really about masculinity. 2. So, the social norms to be broken are the ones which project social concepts of masculinity. That doesn't mean not being masculine, it just means being anarchist towards society if it demands too much. By demands here I mean implicit demands. This is more about the situation in Russia. Another important fact: there are still some tribes left in the world, whose society is that of prehistoric times. In those of them which do not link availability of females with performance during hunting - there is no homosexuality. Interesting, that looks completely different than your previous response: "You had suggested it's "tough being straight" for me. While that's not true for me, it's quite possibly true for others. The path of least resistance can lead someone to becoming gay.But it's actually "tough being straight" for these guys, because society imposes too many contradicting demands on "real men". Instead of making childish decisions, these guys should make it tough for society to impose anything on them, i.e. take the fight back. Being masculine is one thing, but abiding by all of society's norms is another." Plus, your least resistance thing doesn't make any sense because you have arbitrary rules on what to resist. I don't do it, and the new Russian law does not provide punishment for being gay. Thank you for pointing that out. Good thing I said that before you repeated it. However it's true that stopping the "born this way" indoctrination is just part of the solution. Teaching men to resist social projections is the other important part, and of course this is not mainstream in Russia. The social projections? In America we recognize that it is normal to be straight, and we don't care if you aren't. You sound as if you guys hear something about being gay and assume everyone thinks that's the normal thing to be. You are blowing it way out of proportion. Side: It's about time
You did spell it out and you were wrong in the way you did it. Now you are just passing it off as fact. I'm sorry if I was wrong. What's the correct way to spell something out, without offending your feelings? Great, you don't understand what I say, and now you don't understand what you say. I understand what you say, I don't understand why you're saying it. What I am saying is that your statements about my words are just your fantasy. These contradict each other. Nope. Not everything that happens is normal. Teens may try drugs and that's not normal - in the sense it should not be viewed as norm. Again, brushed off as fact. There are statistics that more than 50% of the population have had their first sexual experience with a person of the same sex. Only about 3% of the population are gay. So, nothing is brushed off. What the hell do you think goes on in bathrooms? The answer depends on whether a sexual predator is in the bathroom. Worthless. The "born this way" concept is worthless. Interesting, that looks completely different than your previous response To me it doesn't. Plus, your least resistance thing doesn't make any sense because you have arbitrary rules on what to resist. I explained the principle, so it's not arbitrary at all. Thank you for pointing that out. Good thing I said that before you repeated it. Did you say it to yourself? The social projections? In America we recognize that it is normal to be straight, and we don't care if you aren't. You sound as if you guys hear something about being gay and assume everyone thinks that's the normal thing to be. You are blowing it way out of proportion. Social role projections. "You're not a man if you don't...". This sort of bullshit. Maybe there's less of this in America, but it's thriving in post-soviet Russia. Side: The kids are too young
I'm sorry if I was wrong. What's the correct way to spell something out, without offending your feelings? Well, for one, not calling me a liar when I was right would help. I understand what you say, I don't understand why you're saying it. What I am saying is that your statements about my words are just your fantasy. No, you are also saying you don't know what you are saying. Just saying. ;) Nope. Not everything that happens is normal. Teens may try drugs and that's not normal - in the sense it should not be viewed as norm. You are against hypersexuality, too. There are statistics that more than 50% of the population have had their first sexual experience with a person of the same sex. Haha, Russia is gay. The answer depends on whether a sexual predator is in the bathroom. If he does something bad he will be in trouble. To me it doesn't. Even with me reposting? See, you are a complete idiot. I explained the principle, so it's not arbitrary at all. Sure it is, the norms to not follow is what you have deemed as bad. That's known as arbitrary. Did you say it to yourself? I said that you aren't doing what I had just posted, since I am the only one here with a brain, yes it was just to myself. Social role projections. "You're not a man if you don't...". This sort of bullshit. Maybe there's less of this in America, but it's thriving in post-soviet Russia. Except you back the notion "You're not a man if you don't have sex with women." Side: It's about time
Well, for one, not calling me a liar when I was right would help. I'll remember that. You've been wrong so far, your main counterargument against me has been misinterpreting my words. No, you are also saying you don't know what you are saying. Just saying. ;) I never said that in this debate. Do you have voices in your head? You are against hypersexuality, too. No really. But teens should be taught how to control it rather than to embrace every sexual impulse. Haha, Russia is gay. That wasn't statistics on Russia. Even with me reposting? See, you are a complete idiot. I see that you're a complete idiot. What you reposted had the same meaning as the other quote. Sure it is, the norms to not follow is what you have deemed as bad. That's known as arbitrary. I have shown why they are bad so it's not arbitrary. I said that you aren't doing what I had just posted, since I am the only one here with a brain, yes it was just to myself. You have yet to show you're "with a brain". You can't even remember what you'd said one post ago. Except you back the notion "You're not a man if you don't have sex with women." I don't back that notion. A man can abstain from sex and still be a man. Side: The kids are too young
I'll remember that. You've been wrong so far, your main counterargument against me was misquoting me. How would you know? You can't even recognize your own words. I never said that in this debate. Do you have voices in your head? I don't expect you to be smart enough to recognize you are an idiot. You didn't say those words directly, no one would really expect you to say them. That wasn't statistics on Russia. No shit, they weren't real for anywhere. I see that you're a complete idiot. What you reposted had the same meaning as the other quote. You added an entire second part that was completely missing from your first post that actually answered my second question which you didn't do originally which I was accusing you of. I have shown why they are bad so it's not arbitrary. Not once have you posted any reason why gay sex is bad. You have yet to show you're "with a brain". You can't even remember what you'd said one post ago. "Not saying you do that." It is a webpage. I can just scroll up and see in plain text those 5 words. Just because you don't bother reading my posts doesn't mean I didn't take the time to type it. Side: It's about time
How would you know? You can't even recognize your own words. You're bad at telepathy. I see my own words and I see you writing bullshit about what I'd "said". I don't expect you to be smart enough to recognize you are an idiot. You didn't say those words directly, no one would really expect you to say them. I'm not an idiot just because a dickhead like you says I am. I didn't say "those words" either directly or indirectly. No shit, they weren't real for anywhere. Right, I was actually remembering Kinsey's data: 48% of men have had 1 sexual experience with person of same sex. But Kinsey is a known falsifier. However, here is a link which proves my statement that not everything teens do identifies their "orientation": http://link.springer.com/article/10. You added an entire second part that was completely missing from your first post that actually answered my second question which you didn't do originally which I was accusing you of. I just elaborated on what's meant by "stupid and contradicting norms". But these words were in my preceding post, maybe you didn't notice them. "Not saying you do that." It is a webpage. I can just scroll up and see in plain text those 5 words. Just because you don't bother reading my posts doesn't mean I didn't take the time to type it. Great. Now check the whole dialog: YOU: That's way better than the alternative of pushing people to choose something and then say they were fully responsible for their decision and should be punished.Not saying you do that, but your version isn't really that disgusting. ME: I don't do it, and the new Russian law does not provide punishment for being gay.However it's true that stopping the "born this way" indoctrination is just part of the solution. Teaching men to resist social projections is the other important part, and of course this is not mainstream in Russia. YOU: Thank you for pointing that out. Good thing I said that before you repeated it. -> Idiot detected! You only said it about me, while I also mentioned the Russian law. I did that, because I could not guess what the hell you meant by: "That's way better than the alternative of pushing people to choose something and then say they were fully responsible for their decision and should be punished." - were you speaking about me, or also the new law? But now, once I've put it all here, I'm sure you'll skip the subject and enjoy having made me write so much in vain. Side: The kids are too young
You're bad at telepathy. I see my own words and I see you writing bullshit about what I'd "said". I was referring to you saying that 2 different passages were the same even when placed together. Since you can't see those words were yours I assume you can't see any of your own words. I'm not an idiot just because a dickhead like you says I am. I didn't say "those words" either directly or indirectly. You said them indirectly. You implied the shit out of those words. Hehe. Right, I was actually remembering Kinsey's data: 48% of men have had 1 sexual experience with person of same sex. But Kinsey is a known falsifier. Haha, you quoted false data and quoted it falsely. I just elaborated on what's meant by "stupid and contradicting norms". But these words were in my preceding post, maybe you didn't notice them. I quoted your previous post, they weren't there. Plus, you didn't answer the question with anything that wasn't completely arbitrary. Idiot detected! ... I could not guess what the hell you meant by See, we look at the guy who can't figure things out and we have found the idiot. were you speaking about me, or also the new law? I wasn't talking about either. But now, once I've put it all here, I'm sure you'll skip the subject and enjoy having made me write so much in vain. You didn't have to type all of that out, you could have just said you were wrong and moved on. Side: It's about time
I was referring to you saying that 2 different passages were the same even when placed together. Since you can't see those words were yours I assume you can't see any of your own words. I never said they were the same, stop lying about such minor things. I said they meant the same. You said them indirectly. You implied the shit out of those words. Hehe. Suit yourself, if that's what you want to see in my words. First rule of sanitarium janitors - not to argue with madmen. Haha, you quoted false data and quoted it falsely. He's a known falsifier to those who oppose LGBT. The actual gay rights movement had been started in the USA by this guy and his "research". And I don't have to remember these figures to the percent. What important is that 48% is still > 10 times 3%, which would prove my point in case the data was correct. See, we look at the guy who can't figure things out and we have found the idiot. Yep, I can't figure out what the hell's going on in your head. The way you wrote that phrase it could mean anything. But here you go again, playing that dumb game where you don't quote your phrase, but imply that its meaning is clear, while it's not. I wasn't talking about either. Then you weren't talking about anything, so there was nothing to figure out for me. You didn't have to type all of that out, you could have just said you were wrong and moved on. Since this is a side-line and a minor issue I might have considered admitting you're "right", just to stop the silly brawl which is irrelevant to the issue being discussed. However I see that you tend to treat any such "confession" as proof that you're right about everything. Side: The kids are too young
I never said they were the same, stop lying about such minor things. I said they meant the same. It's impossible, one was only half finished. Suit yourself, if that's what you want to see in my words. First rule of sanitarium janitors - not to argue with madmen. I hope you quote them better than some of the other quoting you have done on here. He's a known falsifier to those who oppose LGBT. The actual gay rights movement had been started in the USA by this guy and his "research". And I don't have to remember these figures to the percent. What important is that 48% is still > 10 times 3%, which would prove my point in case the data was correct. You said the statistic was that over 50% of someones first experience. I don't care that you quoted the percentage wrong. Yep, I can't figure out what the hell's going on in your head. The way you wrote that phrase it could mean anything. But here you go again, playing that dumb game where you don't quote your phrase, but imply that its meaning is clear, while it's not. The dumb game? I never implied that the meaning was clear. I "implied" that I said it. Now that you know what I meant, you still don't believe I said it. Then you weren't talking about anything, so there was nothing to figure out for me. And, you were dumb enough to try to figure something out, good job. Since this is a side-line and a minor issue I might have considered admitting you're "right", just to stop the silly brawl which is irrelevant to the issue being discussed. However I see that you tend to treat any such "confession" as proof that you're right about everything. How the fuck would you know? You haven't confessed being wrong about anything. Side: It's about time
And, you were dumb enough to try to figure something out, good job. What do you mean, dumb? I don't have a time machine, and could not see into the future when you said "I meant neither" to my "That's way better than the alternative of pushing people to choose something and then say they were fully responsible for their decision and should be punished." - were you speaking about me, or also the new law?" How the fuck would you know? You haven't confessed being wrong about anything. I was referring to to other debates. Everything else is a waste of my time. In the beginning of this argument, you asked me 3 stupid questions, I answered them. You did not prove my initial claims wrong, I mean these: ------------------------------ 1 ---------------------------- pakicetus: They can abstain from homosexual behavior, but they can't stop being gay. ME: This is bullshit which is generated by dickheads from mass media and has nothing to do worth[with] science. Give me a link to any scientific article which claims to have proved that gayness is "inborn" and "immutable", and I'll show you the paragraphs in it which say "these results may mean", "this can be interpreted as", e.t.c. Nothing has been proved, although they've been boasting about this for more than a decade. The truth is, most of the statistical "research" has either been proved false, or the results were not repeated by other scientists who did the same surveys. Also this remains true: -------------------------------- 2 ------------------------- 1. "There are many habits and aptitudes which are not inborn, but at the same time are not chosen" - this is a well-known fact. Social conditioning which happens from birth, creates a huge amount of acquired preferences, tastes e.t.c. These things are not inborn, but neither are they consciously "chosen". If you deny this you are blind to the facts. 2. So, the line of reasoning in which we say "Did you choose to...." -> "No" ->"Then this is inborn", is fallacious. Everything else, like how we understood each other's words, is completely irrelevant. You seem to have a talent for misunderstanding people, or maybe a talent for pretending that you misunderstand. Either way, I have no intention of playing your silly games. If you have something to say about (1) and (2), not stupid questions like "Did you choose to be straight", but something concrete - then I will answer. Side: The kids are too young
Right back at you. Thanks. But I didn't need talent to misunderstand you. You started the dialog by asking me 3 stupid questions, the first one was: YOU: "Did you choose to be straight?" My mistake was to dispute the implications of this, so when I asked you: ME:"No, I didn't choose to be straight - so what?" YOU: Answer to something else. ME: "So, what was your argument? I was answering the implied argument as I understood it, but to continue debating I have to know whether or not I understood correctly." YOU: "Maybe I don't actually feel like debating you." So, it was your talent for keeping away from the central issue and debating some rubbish, that kept this debate going. And my lack of talent for guessing your thoughts, however I suspect there was not much to guess: you began with the stupid mainstream "Did you choose to be" stereotypes. Side: The kids are too young
Your talent comes from misunderstanding after being told what is meant. That does take talent. You refused to tell me what you meant by asking your initial question "Did you choose to be gay", and what were the implications of my answer "No". Until you answer that, there's no way for me to understand your initial argument. Side: The kids are too young
1
point
1
point
1
point
2
points
1
point
0
points
1
point
5
points
7
points
Just to let you know, because you are so oblivious to the world, the reason you got downvoted is because of "This just disgusts and sickens me." You didn't watch the clip, and you have a "reaction" of disgust. The actually clip has 2 normal dressed women walking into the house and they say "Taylor has 2 moms." That's it. Not much to be disgusted with. Side: The kids are too young
Thanks for pointing out the obliviousness. Look, we don't care that you are a huge homophobe. If you came on here and said that it bothers you we wouldn't have as much of a problem. If you said that it is a bad idea to promote gay marriage, fine. But, having it disgust and sicken you is ridiculous. Side: It's about time
I can say that it disgusts and sickens me if I want to because I am entitled to my own opinion. You are a liar. You know for a fact that it doesn't disgust and sicken you that they made it on TV. Disgust is reserved for those gays who go around in public with the assless chaps and ball gags whipping each other. "Taylor has 2 moms" is highly inappropriate at worst. You are entitled to your opinion, but everyone else is entitled to downvote incredibly stupid positions. I don't know why people like you and others are so surprised and attacking me on this issue. Then, you are a complete idiot, because I just explained it to you. Side: It's about time
You are a liar. You know for a fact that it doesn't disgust and sicken you that they made it on TV. Disgust is reserved for those gays who go around in public with the assless chaps and ball gags whipping each other. "Taylor has 2 moms" is highly inappropriate at worst. You are entitled to your opinion, but everyone else is entitled to downvote incredibly stupid positions. You can think, I am a liar but that's all up to you. You can believe a lie then because to me it disgusts and sickens me that people support this sin and perversion. You can say all you want that my position is stupid but it's true. I don't know why you continue to dispute me or even try to debate me when my position will never change at all. So why do you even try? Nothing is going to change. So why bother? Then, you are a complete idiot, because I just explained it to you. Again you can think I am a complete idiot but that's all up to you. Side: The kids are too young
You can think, I am a liar but that's all up to you. You are a liar or an idiot, up to you. You can believe a lie then because to me it disgusts and sickens me that people support this sin and perversion. This one little sin, not really any others. What are you hiding? You can say all you want that my position is stupid but it's true. Not understanding the proper reaction to things is stupid. I don't know why you continue to dispute me or even try to debate me when my position will never change at all. Remember what started this? I was explaining to you why you were downvoted. So why do you even try? Nothing is going to change. So why bother? That might be the stupidest thing I have ever heard a Christian say. You are asking why I would try to change your opinion while trying to change everyone's opinion. Again you can think I am a complete idiot but that's all up to you. And the fact that you are a complete idiot. When you show disgust for something that is benign, what do you do for the stuff that is actually disgusting. You just equated showing gay porn to what this Disney show did. Apparently, you think the Disney channel is gay porn. Side: It's about time
This one little sin, not really any others. What are you hiding I am not hiding anything. What's your point? That might be the stupidest thing I have ever heard a Christian say. You are asking why I would try to change your opinion while trying to change everyone's opinion. Whatever, if you think it's stupid that's up to you. Just because I put out my opinion that it disgusts me and sickens me that people support this doesn't indicate that I am trying to change everyone's opinion. You can think I am but you're wrong. And the fact that you are a complete idiot. When you show disgust for something that is benign, what do you do for the stuff that is actually disgusting. You just equated showing gay porn to what this Disney show did. Apparently, you think the Disney channel is gay porn. Again, it's up to you if you think I am a complete idiot but I know I am not. Notice, how I don't even insult you but you insult me? I think you should be able to debate without insulting but I think you have a problem with that and many others do to. I am only saying that it disgusts and sickens me that they support it and others do as well. I never thought that Disney Channel is gay porn that's what you thought not me. Side: The kids are too young
I am not hiding anything. What's your point? It's ok, that part was for anyone else who reads the post. ;) Whatever, if you think it's stupid that's up to you. No, that's pretty dumb no matter what. You think it is crazy for me to do the exact same thing you are doing. Just because I put out my opinion that it disgusts me and sickens me that people support this doesn't indicate that I am trying to change everyone's opinion. True. The fact that you are trying to change everyone's opinion is indicating that you are trying to change everyone's opinion. You can think I am but you're wrong. Either way, I am not doing anything different than yourself. Again, it's up to you if you think I am a complete idiot but I know I am not. Notice, how I don't even insult you but you insult me? I think you should be able to debate without insulting but I think you have a problem with that and many others do to. You insult people all the time. I am only saying that it disgusts and sickens me that they support it and others do as well. I never thought that Disney Channel is gay porn that's what you thought not me. So, you are saying that gay porn doesn't disgust you. Interesting. Look, I am trying to point out what your statements mean. I assumed you must feel that gay porn is disgusting, right? So, if you feel that the Disney channel is disgusting, and gay porn is disgusting, you are equating the two. You are saying the Disney channel is as bad as gay porn. Side: It's about time
No, it doesn't. It just shows that they acknowledge it exists. They're not saying it's good or bad. It's good they're not taking sides. For example, they've shown vegetarians on the show. They've also shown kids stealing on the show. That doesn't mean they support it. Side: It's about time
|
